Last year, a study published in the journal Nature Methods caused controversy in the scientific community after claiming to find over 100 unintended large genetic deletions or insertions related to the CRISPR gene-editing process. Now the journal has officially retracted the paper after a thorough review found the main claims in the study were not sufficiently backed up by data.

With several human clinical trials involving the CRISPR gene-editing process moving forward, the original study resulted in a flurry of criticism from many scientists in the field. Geneticists argued the study was fundamentally flawed, with a low sample size and conclusions that could not be reasonably attributed to the data gathered.

Gaetan Burgio, a geneticist from Australia National University, was one of the researchers ardently critical of the study, directing a degree of concern at the journal for publishing such as dubious paper in the first place.

"This is a terrible paper and as a reviewer I would have dissmiss (sic) it from the first round of review," Burgio wrote. "This is a worrying trend from 'high impact' journals to promote the hype over good science. The publication of this paper is clearly a failure in the peer review process."

Now the journal Nature Methods has finally responded to the controversy, publishing several critiques of the original study and officially retracting the paper after a review by four independent referees. An accompanying editorial from the journal concluded that the paper's conclusions were not sufficiently supported by the data. The journal also notes its peer review process for this particular paper was not suitably rigorous.

"The original paper was peer reviewed, but we should have sought at least one additional referee with expertise in the genetics of inbred mouse strains. We regret this omission," the editors of the journal write in a recently released statement. "While ensuring appropriate referee expertise is a task we have always taken seriously, and is a central part of the editorial process, we have now put in place further processes to reduce the likelihood that such an error will happen again."

Last week, the scientists behind the original study also published a pre-print article outlining follow-up research that suggested the original results could not be replicated. Further whole-genomic study of mice that had undergone CRISPR gene-editing were found to have no excess, off-target mutations. The new article, yet to be peer-reviewed or published, concludes, "Taken together, these whole-genome-sequencing-level results support the idea that in specific cases, CRISPR-Cas9 editing can precisely edit the genome at the organismal level and may not introduce numerous, unintended, off-target mutations."

The response from Nature Methods concludes by outlining several other whole-genome studies that have been published suggesting CRISPR gene-editing does not result in significant off-target effects. But, it also notes that there are limitations in the current literature and relatively little published data on the effects of the CRISPR process in vivo.

Although this particular study has now officially been retracted it doesn't mean that CRISPR is 100 percent safe. While many geneticists are undoubtedly breathing a sigh of relief and continuing their research, there still is much more work to be done to understand the broader genomic effects of this revolutionary technique.

Tags

With interests in film, new media, and the new wave of psychedelic science, Rich has written for a number of online and print publications over the last decade and was Chair of the Australian Film Critics Association from 2013-2015. Since joining New Atlas Rich’s interests have broadened to encompass the era-defining effects of new technology on culture and life in the 21st century.

5 comments

Sign in to post a comment. Please keep comments to less than 150 words. No abusive material or spam will be published.

christopherApril 2, 2018 10:55 PM

Busted! I would love to see a followup investigation - for someone to have gone to such trouble to fake up a study attacking CRISPR, they must have had some ulterior motive or disreputable purposes. Who? Why? So many unanswered questions!
And as for the slap on the wrist: "not be reasonably attributed to the data gathered." - that in itself is another bit of dishonesty right in our face, and is a far cry from the reality: "results could not be replicated" or if you want to call a spade a spade: it was a fake study with fake results.
Own it properly, and get angry. It's bad enough that "fake news" is 6x more likely to grace our screens these days - we need to be more angry when we find out.

BartyLobethalApril 3, 2018 08:59 AM

@christopher - agreed.

KungfuSteveApril 3, 2018 01:44 PM

Christopher... I feel bad for you. You actually "Instantly" believe something you read in an Ma$$ media article. The entire Industry is Corrupted... and anyone with half a brain would easily realize that Negative news could effect Billions of Dollars in research and developments.
Its not like this is the first time that the Industry has made strawmen, falsified data, smeared and ruined reputations, used the public as live Guinea pigs, etc... all to cover its profitable "Bottom".
The Naive always want to reflect reality in their own personal shade of color... and are equally quick to cast an immediate, non-questionable, Judgement. Drink the KoolAid Lemming...

b@manApril 3, 2018 02:06 PM

"Science" is no longer reliable... none of it. If it is going to be saved than "scientists" will have to save it. You can rest assured however, wherever science enteracts or comengles with politics, there will nothing but corruption.